T Nation

NLRB Appts Ruled Unconstitutional

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Bullshit. [/quote]

What a mature, adult rebuttal.

Okay? Doesn’t change the fact the documents that were ratified where set up to limit the power of any one branch, any one state or any one man.

You can argue Hamilton lost the battle but won the war all you want… But in the end, the country wasn’t set up in order to allow one man to make sweeping changes as he sees fit.

What I think about the current political environment is irrelevant.

[quote]but the reality is that there were people that were harping for big government then just like there are now.
[/quote]

I’m well aware. Still doesn’t change the way things were set up, and the direction the orginal intent was facing.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But in the end, the country wasn’t set up in order to allow one man to make sweeping changes as he sees fit.

[/quote]

LOL at an appointment to a commission that 99% of the people in this forum had never even heard of until it became a “scandal” (much like the current use of the word ‘demagogue’ lol) representing “sweeping changes”.

Thanks for the laugh Beans. I needed that before heading off to work this morning so I can buy things to support the economy.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

This is a newspaper’s opinion, not fact, and does not have any case studies to back it up.

[/quote]

No, not a “newspaper’s opinion.” Nor a journalist’s. Those funny little lines are quotation marks and they’re directly quoting the opinions of the justices who ruled on the case.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Bullshit. [/quote]

What a mature, adult rebuttal.

[/quote]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Also, smells like OFA in this thread[/quote]

Although this could just be based in me not knowing what your OFA acronym means, but I am assuming its a little inside joke amongst you little ladies.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

This is a newspaper’s opinion, not fact, and does not have any case studies to back it up.

[/quote]

No, not a “newspaper’s opinion.” Nor a journalist’s. Those funny little lines are quotation marks and they’re directly quoting the opinions of the justices who ruled on the case.[/quote]

Ah got you. It was a bit confusing because you sourced it to “The Weekly Standard”, didn’t provide a link to it, nor bother to provide a background on what it was the justices were referring to (it could have been another case, like one of the other 3 case studies that I posted that contradict it).

It’s probably my fault really.

Nice job at not responding to anything else I said either.

A+

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

LOL at an appointment to a commission that 99% of the people in this forum had never even heard of until it became a “scandal” (much like the current use of the word ‘demagogue’ lol) representing “sweeping changes”.[/quote]

Not sure where or how you took me making a blanket statement about a larger issue in a secondary post to mean that this particular case (in OP) would equate to a sweeping change. (Not that it couldn’t lead to sweeping changes, those pesky precedences.)

More completely irrelevant nonsense.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Bullshit. [/quote]

What a mature, adult rebuttal.

[/quote]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Also, smells like OFA in this thread[/quote]

Although this could just be based in me not knowing what your OFA acronym means, but I am assuming its a little inside joke amongst you little ladies.[/quote]

What a mature, adult rebuttal.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

What a mature, adult rebuttal. [/quote]

You are soooooo OFA

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Nice job at not responding to anything else I said either.

A+[/quote]

You didn’t say anything worth responding to. You repeated a nonsense claim(appointments are Constutitional) and then some drivel about being “grown ass politicians” instead of “filibuster loving children.” You’re a typical Obama clown. You can’t be reasoned with.

Rule 5, 8 and a touch of 12.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Nice job at not responding to anything else I said either.

A+[/quote]

You didn’t say anything worth responding to. You repeated a nonsense claim(appointments are Constutitional) and then some drivel about being “grown ass politicians” instead of “filibuster loving children.” You’re a typical Obama clown. You can’t be reasoned with.[/quote]

LOL so you bothered to respond to my post (with not a single thought of your own I might add) about Reagan abusing the shit out of the Appointments clause with some drivel about how it wasn’t used all that often until after World War II with not a single mention of addressing its use in the current political landscape (what happened? couldn’t find a quote for that?). And deemed my suggestion that the end-around political appointments might be caused by unprecedented use of the filibuster to be irrelevant? Lulz

And I’m just going to highlight this here for posterity:

[quote]
Jackoffmachine wrote:

you repeated a nonsense claim(appointments are Constutitional)[/quote]

This was AFTER I posted the EXACT wording from the Constitution accompanied by 3 case studies upholding it. This isn’t my opinion here muchacho.

LOL…you guys are great.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Rule 5, 8 and a touch of 12.[/quote]

Ohhhhh more code!!! Do you guys work all this out in your treehouse before coming down and putting on your big boy pants?

Partisian opinion peice: http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/28/obamas-unconstitutional-executive-power

Like I said, this is a small victory for America that will go unsung and ignored.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Partisian opinion peice: http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/28/obamas-unconstitutional-executive-power

Like I said, this is a small victory for America that will go unsung and ignored. [/quote]

Good post. I found his closing to be pretty powerful:

“Every president wants Congress to fall in line behind his agenda and will complain bitterly if the legislative branch refuses to do so. But that feeling of frustration is no excuse for the president to trample on the separation of powers.”

I wonder if he holds the same irreverent view of Reagan, who utilized his appointment authority approximately 600% more than Obama has? (250 or so to 40 some).

Furthermore, does that mean we get to go back and look at the constitutionality of all the decisions made by the illegally appointed posts under Reagan?

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

LOL so you bothered to respond to my post (with not a single thought of your own I might add) about Reagan abusing the shit out of the Appointments clause with some drivel about how it wasn’t used all that often until after World War II with not a single mention of addressing its use in the current political landscape (what happened? couldn’t find a quote for that?). And deemed my suggestion that the end-around political appointments might be caused by unprecedented use of the filibuster to be irrelevant? Lulz

[/quote]

I think you missed the point. As Thunderbolt said, the Senate was not actually in recess. The justices ruled that:

a) there is only one recess session per year

and

b) the Senate was not in recess

How did Reagan “abuse the shit” out of the appointments clause? Were any of his appointments made without the advise and consent of Congress while it was still in session?

Off you go clown.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I think you missed the point. As Thunderbolt said, the Senate was not actually in recess. The justices ruled that:

a) there is only one recess session per year
[/quote]

Weird that the Senate’s own definition of recess is in direct conflict with the determination of the judiciary:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/recess.htm

[quote]
senate.gov wrote:

recess - A temporary interruption of the Senate’s proceedings, sometimes within the same day. The Senate may also recess overnight rather than adjourn at the end of the day. Recess also refers to longer breaks, such as the breaks taken during holiday periods, pursuant to concurrent resolution.[/quote]

What are we to make of that? Is the judiciary not shitting all over the separation of powers in determining that the Senate is not in accordance with its own definition?

Edit: bad formatting

[quote]

b) the Senate was not in recess[/quote]

So you contend that the proceedings “had not been interrupted” not even “during the same day”?

That is an interesting position.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
How did Reagan “abuse the shit” out of the appointments clause? Were any of his appointments made without the advise and consent of Congress while it was still in session?

[/quote]

Why yes, they were actually!!! They were made during “intrasession” recesses of the Senate and not “intersession” recesses (aka THE Recess in between sessions). According to the judiciary:

[quote]
Justice Sentelle wrote:

?the Recess? means that appointments are allowed only during the recess between sessions of the Senate, not when the Senate is simply on a break. It was not up to the president to decide what constitutes a recess[/quote]

What do we plan to do to address all those unconstitutional appointments made over the past 40 years? They number close to 500 if my math is correct (Obama has less than 10%).

Surely you have a plan for that?

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Furthermore, does that mean we get to go back and look at the constitutionality of all the decisions made by the illegally appointed posts under Reagan?[/quote]

I don’t understand your focus on Reagan here, unless it is simiply a case of “but your guys did it, so why can’t mine” school yard game. (Assuming Reagan’s appointees fall under the same circumstance as Bam’s.)

When it comes down to it, you can find power grabs in every administration starting with Jefferson. Well, Adams too I guess.

Thing is, some people see this as an “ahhh ha, my side won.” Which is insane, because there is no “winning and losing” here. It is the future and framework we leave our kids. (Well these days more like how big of a mess we leave our kids.)

So, in short, I have no idea why you care about Reagan so much, unless you are assuming that every conservative thinking individual agrees with everything Reagan did. In the end, it doesn’t appear that Reagan’s appointees were challenged so it is largely irrelevant. Just because a good thing for America happened under Obama’s rule, doesn’t mean that it is a ruling simiply to hurt Bam. Just means that he happened to be the one with his hand in the cookie jar when the lights clicked on. Ignoring it now, because Reagan may or may not have done it is the worst kind of partisian hackery.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Weird that the Senate’s own definition of recess is in direct conflict with the determination of the judiciary:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/recess.htm

[quote]
senate.gov wrote:

recess - A temporary interruption of the Senate’s proceedings, sometimes within the same day. The Senate may also recess overnight rather than adjourn at the end of the day. Recess also refers to longer breaks, such as the breaks taken during holiday periods, pursuant to concurrent resolution.[/quote]

That has nothing to do with recess appointments. Obama’s appointments on January 4 2012 were made while the Senate was still in session.

It’s not determining anything of the sort. The president only has the power to make recess appointments during an “intersession recess” - a break between sessions of Congress.

The Recess Appointments Clause does not allow recess appointments for “short intra-session adjournments.” Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution prohibits one house of Congress from ajourning for more than three days without the consent of the other. The House did not consent to a Senate recess or adjournment of longer than three days. The Senate was still in session when Obama made his appointments.